|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,545
Posts546,087
Members14,420
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 354 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 354 Likes: 34 |
And the Scots, being Scots, decided to reject the English idea of best..........  That's as much a best gun as anything coming out of London and I seriously doubt I'll ever own one. While the concept of a best gun originated in London, that doesn't mean there weren't other makers in Great Britain or Europe and later in the U.S. capable of producing guns of comparable quality. I just happened to end up liking the British hammer guns, which is good since I can't afford the better quality boxlocks, sidelocks and round actions.
I have become addicted to English hammered shotguns to the detriment of my wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
By about WW1, there were no makers in America building guns that compared to the best stuff coming out of London (or out of Birmingham). If anyone came close, it was Lefever.
Were any American makers at that time capable of doing it? Who knows? They didn't do it.
I've handled two of the Parker Invincibles, plus some A-1 Specials and other top American stuff. Some were good, but nice, original Bosses, Purdeys and Woodwards are better.
Notice that Thomas says the Dickson "... yields nothing.." He doesn't say it exceeds. And he is referring to "...thoroughbred lines..."
Burrard liked Dicksons, too. He thought they were strong and beautifully made, but he also said "I do not see it (the round action design) is any better than a bar action sidelock, but it is certainly as good."
Darnes? Come on. I've handles those fancy ones and owned lesser ones. They were all PITA. A mediocre design is always mediocre, regardless of how fancy looking the gun is. Quirky doesn't equal quality.
DMBs are the most overrated guns made today. So incredibly underwhelming (other than in their ads). I'd rather own a Perazzi.
And the Italian-made Purdeys are not Best guns. They're just overpriced OUs for people desperate to own something that says Purdey on it. Again, a Perazzi is a better.
OWD
Last edited by obsessed-with-doubles; 06/05/15 09:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 389 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 389 Likes: 4 |
I just happened to end up liking the British hammer guns, which is good since I can't afford the better quality boxlocks, sidelocks and round actions.
Don't appologize for that. IMO, atheistically, nothing can hold a candle to a fine hammer gun.
“I left long before daylight, alone but not lonely.”~Gordon Macquarrie
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,769 Likes: 757
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,769 Likes: 757 |
By about WW1, there were no makers in America building guns that compared to the best stuff coming out of London (or out of Birmingham). If anyone came close, it was Lefever.
Were any American makers at that time capable of doing it? Who knows? They didn't do it.
I've handled two of the Parker Invincibles, plus some A-1 Specials and other top American stuff. Some were good, but nice, original Bosses, Purdeys and Woodwards are better.
Notice that Thomas says the Dickson "... yields nothing.." He doesn't say it exceeds. And he is referring to "...thoroughbred lines..."
Burrard liked Dicksons, too. He thought they were strong and beautifully made, but he also said "I do not see it (the round action design) is any better than a bar action sidelock, but it is certainly as good."
Darnes? Come on. I've handles those fancy ones and owned lesser ones. They were all PITA. A mediocre design is always mediocre, regardless of how fancy looking the gun is. Quirky doesn't equal quality.
DMBs are the most overrated guns made today. So incredibly underwhelming (other than in their ads). I'd rather own a Perazzi.
And the Italian-made Purdeys are not Best guns. They're just overpriced OUs for people desperate to own something that says Purdey on it. Again, a Perazzi is a better.
OWD
Good lord, this is priceless, on so many levels... So, you, of the "Dogs and Doubles" site (who had to be told, right here, that a boxlock could have intercepting sears, but, I digress) do tell us of the "Fancy" Darnes you have handled. Did you get to handle the foursome that were built for the prince in Saudi Arabia? I'm guessing, no. How 'bout the pair that went to the oil barron in Russia? No? Because THOSE are the only "Fancy" Darnes I've ever handled. Six of them. None destined for the US market. I've never handled a "Fancy" Darne (you have a way with gun terminology, I do have to say) here in the US. Nada, never, zip. The only one that came close was Wes GIlpin's personel R17 slug gun, with folding sight on the quarter rib, detachable claw scope mount, and improved cylinder and modified chokes for use on sea ducks. Wes asked for, and paid for, and got a gun he could shoot ducks with in the morning, and hunt javelina and deer with slugs out to 100 yards with in the evening, and it takes a fair amount of best level skill to pull off a gun that can do that. What grade were the "Fancy" Darnes you handled? What era? What importer? Where were they? Did you take notes on the finishing differences between, say, a James Wayne era V19, and a mid 1990s Bruchet Hors Serie series gun, maybe one in the "Fond Crux" style of engraving? Have you ever used a Darne double rifle? Maybe, those points matter when you are talking about a gun design that is as different as a Darne, and you are talking about best guns. Maybe, you really don't know what you are speaking of. Maybe, all you have ever handled are production Darne guns, fitted to someone else. Might that have something to do with why you are incompetent with the Darne sliding breech design? Don't you tell your dear readers on your site that if they can't get their grouse and woodcock with a 28 gauge Red Label, there is something wrong with them, not the tool? What is wrong with you that a Darne is a PITA? I suppose reminding you of the problems Ruger suffered with barrel regulation, shortly before they pulled the plug on all the doubles, wouldn't convince you otherwise, either. Nope, just go out and get them grousies with that Ruger. Continuing, because a Darne is a PITA for you, it couldn't be a best? Really? Who elected you arbiter of good taste and gun design? You act as if handling a few US spec V grades and owning a beater R makes you an expert on what a company that has been in business for 140 years, give or take, was capable of during that entire time. Perhaps you should go back and review what Gough Thomas had to say about the Darne. Perhaps "Quirky" to you is irrelevent when one looks back to the era of live pigeon shooting in Europe and sees the wins at Monte Carlo, Vichy, Lisbon and Moscow where shooters using Darnes placed first and second, and the contests in Algiers, Milan, and Sao Paulo where they placed first. At one time, the "Quirky" design held a record for most wins at live pigeon shooting, in Europe. Is a run-of-the-mill Darne found, used, here in the states, always going to be a best? Never, but, that doesn't mean various owners of the company couldn't pull off best workmanship, and supply best materials, when a customer came along who could demand, and, pay for it. If you subscribe to the silly notions on what constitutes a best that Kyrie kindly posted, go further back, and see what Toby had to say. You may find it eye opening. Darne lesson over. I'd rather have a Fabbri then a Perazzi. I'd rather have a Fabbri than a Purdey, too. If someone wants to sponsor me, I'll even take one with Phoenix barrels. If you were honest, you'd tell us that you prefer the Fabbri, also. Italian gun lesson over. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
Let us get technical then. My job entails handling best guns, ie Holland, Purdey and the like almost daily. Has been since 1985. I have taken apart every type of best gun and plenty of others too.
The Round Action has fewer parts, all supported by steel, not wood as in a sidelock. Mechanical engineering principles favor the decrease of parts for the same task. The geometry, the much touted 90 degree angle of sear to tumbler engagement is maintained in the Round Action as are intercepting safeties. Arguably the stock is also stronger by having more wood left in the jaws. Also there are few external pins, screws for the uninitiated. In non ejector Dickson there is only one visible screw on the action, the one retaining the trigger plate.
As for Darnes, Ideal and other continental European guns, the design might not suit some, the workmanship is flawless. And technically some continentals tackled and solved problems that the British will not face, like the rust trap between the ribs which the French solved with the abolition of the bottom rib (Darne) and the "I" section rib (Ideal). Caprinus of Sweden have solved several OU issues that still befuddle best makers and have reduced the overall height of the action to 56 millimeters, less than Boss and Woodward. But they are not British and that is an apparently unforgiveable act in gundom!
Purdey themselves promote their Perugini model as a best gun. Ask them. If you see the work done by PV you will know that what they do is in several areas over and above what any British firm does and they do it in certified and tested modern steel.
Perhaps a chat with some English barrel makers re the Darne and its barrel quality might also prove useful.
It is always useful to keep in mind that to date no English gun has been subjected to the endurance test of target shooting. Endurance is an undeniable test of mechanical quality.
Nothing cures best gunnitis than an estimate for repairs, both in total money and time for completion. Brister likened British prices to a court sentence, three years and ex thousand dollars. Contrast that with the four hours it takes Perazzi to build AND SHIP a stock to the client's measurement and this business takes on a whole different dimension.
Last edited by Shotgunlover; 06/06/15 05:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,182 Likes: 1161
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,182 Likes: 1161 |
Good lord, this is priceless, on so many levels...
So, you, of the "Dogs and Doubles" site (who had to be told, right here, that a boxlock could have intercepting sears, but, I digress) do tell us of the "Fancy" Darnes you have handled.
Did you get to handle the foursome that were built for the prince in Saudi Arabia? I'm guessing, no. How 'bout the pair that went to the oil barron in Russia? No? Because THOSE are the only "Fancy" Darnes I've ever handled. Six of them.
None destined for the US market.
I've never handled a "Fancy" Darne (you have a way with gun terminology, I do have to say) here in the US. Nada, never, zip. The only one that came close was Wes GIlpin's personel R17 slug gun, with folding sight on the quarter rib, detachable claw scope mount, and improved cylinder and modified chokes for use on sea ducks. Wes asked for, and paid for, and got a gun he could shoot ducks with in the morning, and hunt javelina and deer with slugs out to 100 yards with in the evening, and it takes a fair amount of best level skill to pull off a gun that can do that. What grade were the "Fancy" Darnes you handled? What era? What importer? Where were they? Did you take notes on the finishing differences between, say, a James Wayne era V19, and a mid 1990s Bruchet Hors Serie series gun, maybe one in the "Fond Crux" style of engraving? Have you ever used a Darne double rifle?
Maybe, those points matter when you are talking about a gun design that is as different as a Darne, and you are talking about best guns. Maybe, you really don't know what you are speaking of. Maybe, all you have ever handled are production Darne guns, fitted to someone else. Might that have something to do with why you are incompetent with the Darne sliding breech design? Don't you tell your dear readers on your site that if they can't get their grouse and woodcock with a 28 gauge Red Label, there is something wrong with them, not the tool?
What is wrong with you that a Darne is a PITA?
I suppose reminding you of the problems Ruger suffered with barrel regulation, shortly before they pulled the plug on all the doubles, wouldn't convince you otherwise, either. Nope, just go out and get them grousies with that Ruger.
Continuing, because a Darne is a PITA for you, it couldn't be a best? Really? Who elected you arbiter of good taste and gun design? You act as if handling a few US spec V grades and owning a beater R makes you an expert on what a company that has been in business for 140 years, give or take, was capable of during that entire time. Perhaps you should go back and review what Gough Thomas had to say about the Darne. Perhaps "Quirky" to you is irrelevent when one looks back to the era of live pigeon shooting in Europe and sees the wins at Monte Carlo, Vichy, Lisbon and Moscow where shooters using Darnes placed first and second, and the contests in Algiers, Milan, and Sao Paulo where they placed first.
At one time, the "Quirky" design held a record for most wins at live pigeon shooting, in Europe.
Is a run-of-the-mill Darne found, used, here in the states, always going to be a best? Never, but, that doesn't mean various owners of the company couldn't pull off best workmanship, and supply best materials, when a customer came along who could demand, and, pay for it. If you subscribe to the silly notions on what constitutes a best that Kyrie kindly posted, go further back, and see what Toby had to say. You may find it eye opening.
Darne lesson over.
I'd rather have a Fabbri then a Perazzi. I'd rather have a Fabbri than a Purdey, too. If someone wants to sponsor me, I'll even take one with Phoenix barrels.
If you were honest, you'd tell us that you prefer the Fabbri, also.
Italian gun lesson over.
Best,
Ted
Don't hold back, Ted, why don't you tell him how you really feel? SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,124 Likes: 195
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,124 Likes: 195 |
 ENDURANCE!!!!! This English offering from Purdey the younger has been in continuous use for all but a few of years for its restoration since 1869 it is Nitro Proof and my everyday use gun. Shotgunlover how long do you want? Just to get things in proportion the year it was built the suez canal was opened in the November and Ulysses S. Grant was the US President from March 1869. Target!!! Everything the gun has ever dropped up to now has been a target and of course no person has lived long enough to see its use from the beginning. Also there is no good reason to prevent it from being a shootable gun for a further hundred years so its build quality I feel is beyond question, even if the wood does go all the way to the fore end joint.
The only lessons in my life I truly did learn from where the ones I paid for!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
Blah, blah blah. Who cares if the workmanship on a Darne is flawess? The design stinks. They're like square tires, even if they're beautifully made.
Who said anything about Fabbris? I'd take one - if you gave it to me. I think they're boring, but they work, and the stocks on most of them have the gun equivalent of cankles. I'd rather buy a Perazzi and spend the rest of the money on shooting out west or in the UK.
If you would rather have a Fabbri than a Purdey, good for you. Taste can't be taught. You've either got it or you don't.
Shotgunlover, these kind of statements make we wonder if you have any idea what you're saying:
"It is always useful to keep in mind that to date no English gun has been subjected to the endurance test of target shooting."
So no English gun has ever been used for target shooting? Is that what you're saying? OK. I find this hard to believe, but please elaborate. And as Damascus pointed out above, isn't anything you shoot at a target, including the hundreds and hundreds of birds a day they Brits used as "targets" on the old, big driven shoots?
And what about live pigeon shooting? Over the last 100+ years, I think a few British shotguns have been used at the world's top live pigeon shoots. But maybe you know otherwise.
OWD
Last edited by obsessed-with-doubles; 06/06/15 08:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114 |
What make a shotgun a "Best Gun"- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, n'ces pas? I prefer a side-by-side in sidelock configuration, and if I Warren Buffett's portfolio at my beck and call, I'd prefer a Boss or a Purdey island lock with ejectors and Whitworth barrels. Does the ratio of dead birds in hand to shells expended on a high volume shoot factor into this choice? Say, doves in SA or driven pheasant in Hungary or grouse in Scotland? Any shotgun that can hold up to that degree of high volume shooting season after season has to be amongst the Best, if not Better, right?
"The field is the touchstone of the man"..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
US champion Kim Rhode shoots anywhere between 500 and 1000 practice shots daily. She used her Perazzi for practice and tournaments putting over a million shots through it. That is what I had in mind when I mentioned target use. In addition to the actual shooting add the constant open-close due to safety rules and the friction from hands and clothing and you get the idea. Simply lasting over time is not endurance.
UK Olympian Braithwaite in Mexico did no use an English shotgun. I am constantly looking to see even one UK shooter appear holding a local gun on the stands. So far I have not seen one.
To add something to this discussion that goes beyond style and mystique. What the British makers gave us, and is not often copied, is handling and balance. In the headlong rush to exploit British patents post 1900 most makers forgot these essentials and they made superficial copies but forgot the handling part.
As far as execution and workmanship my experience is that others can and have done it better, even if they miss the balance part.
Anyone into good quality shotguns should read Bruce Owen's article about CNC and high tech methods used in best guns, published in 2003 I think in Shooting Sportsman. It is one of the most candid articles on the subject, and his being the former production manager of Purdey gives it special relevance.
After you read it you will re-evaluate ideas about best materials being used in best guns, the comparative levels of engineering accuracy in the product itself then and now.
I had seen these new methods used by Sandro Lucchini in Armitalia a decade before the British employed them. I did not buy an Armitalia because back then I was under the spell of the hand work mystique. In psychology they call this introjection.
Last edited by Shotgunlover; 06/06/15 09:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
